Fidelity, Schwab, and J.P. Morgan: Who Really Leads Wealth Management?

Leaders from the world’s largest companies, equity research firms, hedge funds, and the Federal Reserve rely on Morning Consult’s 30,000 daily survey interviews in 45 countries covering more than 5,000 brands, economic indicators, and risk metrics. Schedule a demo to access the always-on consumer signal.

Category Advantage measures the drivers of brand strength by capturing both mental availability (likelihood a brand comes to mind) and emotional closeness (how strongly consumers connect with a brand) among all competitors. Schedule a private briefing on this research. .

The bottom line up front  

Fidelity, Schwab, and J.P. Morgan have built a commanding lead on penetration, network breadth, and emotional depth. Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Edward Jones form a middle tier that is broadly recalled but not distinctively chosen for any specific trigger. And a lower tier — Goldman Sachs, Ameriprise, Raymond James, UBS — competes from narrow bases with very different strategic logics. The segment’s shared challenge is that overconcentration in retirement and estate planning has left generational whitespace. As younger investors form brand preferences through volatility, stock options, and financial coordination, the Powerhouses risk becoming the “retirement upgrade” rather than the first serious financial partner.

Segment Snapshot 

Brand scorecard

The Top Tier: Category Anchors

Fidelity Investments: Dominant but Under-Converting

Fidelity is the category’s mental giant: 15% MMS, 67% mental penetration, 8.3 network size, 3.3 emotional connection — each one the highest of any brand in the 30-brand category. But Fidelity also carries the category’s largest conversion gap at -9.9 percentage points. Its estimated market share (25%) far exceeds its mental share (15%), meaning consumers are using Fidelity at rates its brand salience alone would not predict — likely driven by employer plans and 401(k) distribution rather than active choice. The mental advantage matrix deepens the picture: Fidelity dramatically over-indexes on retirement (+9pp) and early retirement (+8pp) but under-indexes on selling a home (-6pp) and buying a home (-6pp). This is a brand with the deepest associations in the category but the narrowest trigger coverage relative to its scale. The strategic risk is that Fidelity’s dominance is anchored to infrastructure more than preference — and infrastructure advantages are replicable.

Charles Schwab: The Broadest Foundation

Schwab holds the second-strongest position in the category: 10% MMS, 57% penetration, 7.1 network size, and a 3.0 emotional connection that places it in the top three. Its -2.4pp gap is significantly healthier than Fidelity’s, suggesting better alignment between mental share and market capture. The mental advantage data shows strength on retirement (+4pp) and year-end rebalancing (+3pp), with a moderate positive on portfolio diversification (+3pp). Schwab’s profile is the segment’s most balanced: high penetration, broad network, strong emotional connection, and a manageable gap. Its challenge is that its CEP strengths overlap heavily with Fidelity’s — retirement and rebalancing — creating direct competitive pressure at the top of the segment rather than complementary positioning.

J.P. Morgan Private Bank: Aspiration Meets Scale

J.P. Morgan Private Bank rounds out the top tier with 8% MMS, 56% penetration, and a 3.1 emotional connection — second only to Fidelity. Its -2.8pp gap is moderate and its 6.8 network size is above the segment average. What distinguishes J.P. Morgan is its positioning: it carries the aspirational weight of the J.P. Morgan parent brand while offering a breadth of CEP associations that span retirement, estate planning, and investment management. Unlike Fidelity (whose penetration is partly distribution-driven) or Schwab (whose identity leans self-directed), J.P. Morgan occupies the advisory premium space in consumers’ minds. Its competitive risk comes from Goldman Sachs below (which shares the prestige positioning but with narrower reach) and from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (which compete for the same upper-affluent client but with weaker emotional scor

Request a briefing on your category's users

The Middle Tier: Broadly Recalled, Not Distinctively Chosen

The Lifecycle Risk: Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Vanguard, and Edward Jones cluster in a tight band: 5–6% MMS each, 40–52% mental penetration, and mental advantage profiles that are overwhelmingly flat — performing at expected levels across most triggers without distinctive strength on any. They are broadly recalled but not specifically chosen. If younger investors form their first wealth relationships with digital-first platforms and then “upgrade” to a Powerhouse only when retirement becomes salient, these brands cede 10–15 years of compounding wallet share. The risk is not irrelevance. It is becoming the retirement upgrade rather than the first serious financial partner.

Vanguard Personal Advisor Services: Broad Network, Leaky Conversion

Vanguard occupies an unusual position: its 7.1 network size ties with Schwab for second-broadest in the category, and its 52% mental penetration places it firmly in the upper half. But its -4.1pp gap is the second-widest in the segment after Fidelity, and its 2.9 emotional connection — while above average — trails the top three. Vanguard’s profile suggests a brand that consumers associate with many wealth triggers (broad network) and recall frequently (high penetration), but that is not converting that mental presence into proportional market capture. Like Fidelity, this may reflect heavy 401(k) and employer-plan distribution. Vanguard’s challenge is to build active preference — a reason to choose Vanguard deliberately — rather than relying on the passive inertia of plan-based access.

Morgan Stanley: Prestige Without CEP Distinction

Morgan Stanley holds 5% MMS with 63% brand awareness — the second-highest awareness in the segment — but converts that awareness into just 41% mental penetration. The gap between what consumers know and what they retrieve is wider for Morgan Stanley than for most peers. Its -0.7pp conversion gap is small, meaning its mental and market shares are roughly aligned. But both sit at 5% — a level that places Morgan Stanley closer to Edward Jones and Merrill Lynch than to the top three. The mental advantage matrix shows a flat profile: no CEP where Morgan Stanley over-indexes meaningfully. Its 6.0 network size is the narrowest among the segment’s top-half brands. Morgan Stanley’s brand is respected but not specifically retrieved. In a category where the top brands win by owning particular life moments, performing at par everywhere is a vulnerability, not a strength.

Merrill Lynch: Legacy Name, Eroding Distinction

Merrill Lynch carries one of the most recognized names in wealth management (57% awareness) but converts it into just 5% MMS and 40% mental penetration — nearly identical to Morgan Stanley’s profile. Its -3.1pp gap suggests that consumers are using Merrill at rates exceeding its mental salience, likely reflecting Bank of America’s cross-sell infrastructure more than active brand preference. Merrill’s 6.7 network size is above average, indicating breadth of associations among those who do consider it. But its 2.5 emotional connection trails the segment average and sits well below the top tier. Merrill’s strategic tension is architectural: partial independence from Bank of America gives it more advisory credibility than a pure bank-embedded brand, but that independence has not translated into the distinctive CEP ownership or emotional depth that would separate it from Morgan Stanley or Edward Jones. The Merrill brand should be worth more than the data shows it delivering.

Edward Jones: Community Trust, National Genericism

Edward Jones holds 5% MMS with 52% awareness and 44% mental penetration — a conversion ratio that is actually the healthiest in this middle tier. Its -1.0pp gap is small and its 6.1 network size is respectable. But at 2.5 emotional connection, Edward Jones trails Fidelity, Schwab, J.P. Morgan, Vanguard, and Morgan Stanley. The mental advantage matrix shows Edward Jones at +3pp on retirement planning — a positive signal, but one that overlaps directly with Fidelity and Schwab’s much stronger positions. Edward Jones’s brand is built on community-level advisor relationships, which may produce local emotional depth that national data understates. But at the national level, it reads as undifferentiated. The brand’s path to growth likely runs through owning trigger moments that are inherently local — managing aging parents’ money, estate coordination, community-based financial planning — where its branch model is a genuine structural advantage.

The Lower Tier: Narrow Bases, Different Logics

Goldman Sachs WM: The Segment’s Only Positive Gap

Goldman Sachs is the only brand in this 11-brand segment whose mental share (+0.3pp) exceeds its estimated market share. At 2% MMS, 41% penetration, and 46% awareness, Goldman is not a scale player in the mass-affluent universe — but its brand reputation runs ahead of its retail footprint. The mental advantage matrix shows Goldman over-indexing on managing aging parents’ money (+2pp) and inheriting assets (+2pp), consistent with ultra-high-net-worth positioning radiating outward. Goldman’s 2.4 emotional connection is below the segment average, but this may reflect the fact that most survey respondents have never interacted with the brand directly — they know its reputation, not its experience. Goldman’s strategic position is the inverse of Fidelity’s: narrow distribution, broad aspiration. As Goldman extends into mass-affluent advisory services (Marcus, robo-hybrid), the question is whether it can maintain its aspirational aura while expanding its addressable market.

Ameriprise: Broad Network, Narrow Reach

Ameriprise presents a puzzling profile. Its 6.6 network size is the fifth-highest in the entire 30-brand category — higher than Morgan Stanley (6.0), Edward Jones (6.1), and Goldman Sachs (5.9). Among consumers who consider Ameriprise, the brand is associated with a wide range of wealth triggers. But at 32% mental penetration and 31% awareness, the brand simply does not reach enough consumers to convert that network breadth into mental market share (2%). Its -1.0pp gap is modest and its 2.2 emotional connection is below average. Ameriprise’s challenge is overwhelmingly an awareness and penetration problem. The associative structure is already there — consumers who know Ameriprise link it to many life moments. The brand needs more consumers to know it in the first place.

Raymond James & UBS: Niche Positioning, National Invisibility

Raymond James (2% MMS, 28% awareness, 5.4 network size) and UBS (1% MMS, 20% awareness, 5.8 network size) anchor the bottom of the segment. Both are substantial wealth management operations with deep advisory capabilities, but at the national mass-affluent level, they are functionally invisible. Raymond James’s 5.4 network size is the narrowest in the segment, meaning even the consumers who know it associate it with fewer life moments than any peer. UBS’s 1% MMS places it alongside Regional Players and smaller digital brands. Both carry -2.0pp gaps. These brands likely perform much stronger within their core client bases (Raymond James among independent advisors, UBS among globally-oriented high-net-worth investors), but in a national $100k+ sample, their wealth positioning does not register. Their strategic logic is niche excellence rather than broad mental availability — a viable path, but one that limits category-level growth.

Competitive Context

The Powerhouses’ mental dominance is real, but the competitive dynamics differ by tier:

The top tier faces an efficiency challenge from Digital Disruptors. Fidelity, Schwab, and J.P. Morgan require 50%+ awareness to achieve 56–67% penetration. Six Digital Disruptor brands average 40% penetration on just 36% awareness — a nearly 1:1 ratio. Robinhood (6% MMS) now matches Morgan Stanley and Edward Jones on mental market share despite roughly 10 points less awareness. If Disruptors expand into retirement and estate planning before the top tier expands into accumulation triggers, the competitive balance shifts. The window for the Powerhouses to build pre-retirement associations is narrowing.

The middle tier competes in a crowded zone where differentiation is everything. At 5–6% MMS, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, and Edward Jones share mental space with Wells Fargo Advisors (6%), Capital One (6%), and Robinhood (6%) — brands from entirely different segments with entirely different origin stories. In this zone, the brands that own a specific trigger will pull ahead. The brands that remain generalists will stagnate. Banks with Wealth Arms hold 16% combined MMS with flat CEP profiles, which suppresses the active consideration pool that the middle-tier Powerhouses need to grow.

The emotional vacuum remains category-wide — and unclaimed. No segment averages above 2.65 on a 7-point scale. Even Fidelity at 3.3 sits below the midpoint. The Powerhouses lead but barely. The first brand to move meaningfully above 4.0 would achieve a structural advantage that competitors cannot quickly replicate. Fidelity, Schwab, and J.P. Morgan are best positioned to make this move — but they have not yet made it.

The Strategic Imperative

• Fidelity and Vanguard must close the conversion gap. Both are recalled far more often than they are actively chosen. The barrier data shows 42% of 35–44-year-olds cite minimum thresholds and 26% cite transfer fees. Publicizing tiered advisory models, reducing visible friction, and messaging that “you don’t need $500k to start” would expand the reachable market. Moving from 2.65 to 4.0+ on emotional connection would shift share of wallet — the relationship between emotional depth and portfolio concentration is clear in this data.

• Schwab and J.P. Morgan should expand trigger coverage into the “first serious money” moment. Own RSU diversification, stock-option planning, and first-home equity coordination for 30–45-year-olds. The banner data shows these triggers are highly salient for the 21–44 cohort and brand roles are still forming. These two brands have the emotional foundation (3.0–3.1) to credibly extend into pre-retirement triggers without diluting trust.

• Morgan Stanley, Merrill, and Edward Jones must each differentiate or stagnate. At 5% MMS each, they cannot afford to remain at parity across all triggers. Morgan Stanley could build around wealth complexity and global coordination. Merrill could leverage its Bank of America adjacency for tax and mortgage-linked wealth transitions. Edward Jones could own the community-advisor model for local trigger moments — managing aging parents’ finances, estate coordination, multigenerational planning — where its branch model is a genuine structural advantage.

• Goldman should manage the aspiration-expansion tension carefully. As it extends into mass-affluent advisory (Marcus, robo-hybrid), its positive gap and prestige halo are strategic assets worth protecting. The risk of downmarket expansion is brand dilution; the risk of staying narrow is permanent niche positioning. Goldman’s mental advantage on inheritance and intergenerational triggers could be the bridge — broadening reach without abandoning the premium identity.

• Ameriprise should invest in awareness, not repositioning. Its 6.6 network size means the associative structure is already working — consumers who know it link it to many triggers. The bottleneck is that only 31% of $100k+ households know the brand. Targeted awareness investment in podcasts, professional networks, and financial media could yield outsized returns.

• Compete on stability, not technology. Technology should enhance trust, not replace it. The Powerhouses’ advantage is stewardship — intergenerational expertise, advisor continuity, estate planning depth. Chasing Disruptors on novelty or UX dilutes this positioning. The move is to make trust feel modern, not to make modern feel trustworthy.

The core insight: The Traditional Powerhouses do not need to reinvent themselves. They need to widen the entry ramp. But widening the ramp means different things for different brands. Fidelity must convert infrastructure into preference. Schwab and J.P. Morgan must expand into pre-retirement triggers. The middle tier must differentiate or accept permanent parity. And the lower tier must decide: niche excellence or broader ambition. The opportunity is not repositioning. It is breadth — pursued brand by brand, trigger by trigger.

About this research

Morning Consult conducts over 30,000 daily proprietary surveys in 45 countries covering more than 5,000 brands and 50 economic indicators. 

Our category advantage research is aimed at understanding the needs driving consumers in your category — and how your brand can own more of them. This research is built on validated principles of brand-driven growth and powered by Morning Consult’s industry-leading sampling technology.

Measure the true drivers of brand strength

Capture both mental availability (the likelihood your brand comes to mind when consumers face a need or occasion) and emotional closeness (how strongly consumers connect with your brand), benchmarked against competitors.

Uncover Category Entry Points (CEPs)

Directly tied to mental availability, see the specific needs, occasions, and triggers that drive purchase decisions in your category, and how strongly your brand is linked to them.

Pinpoint growth opportunities

Direct investment toward the moments and consumer segments with the greatest potential to grow your brand.

Turn insights into action fast

Get survey results in 4–5 days through a centralized dashboard and short-form memo that equips stakeholders with clear direction on where and how to win.

Learn more